# Outreach strategy: sequence, cadence, and branching How the CRM's outreach templates and pipeline stages are meant to work together. Two audiences, two cadences - see "Why two cadences" below before changing either one. **Sources this is built from:** - [Cognism - Ultimate Cold Email Template](https://www.cognism.com/blog/ultimate-cold-email-template) - [SalesHive - Best Tactics for Email Outreach Campaigns](https://saleshive.com/blog/best-tactics-for-email-outreach-campaigns) - [TinyCommand - What is Email Outreach](https://tinycommand.com/blogs/what-is-email-outreach) - [Mail Flow Authority - Email Outreach Campaign Strategy](https://mailflowauthority.com/cold-email/email-outreach-campaign-strategy) All four converge on the same shape: a short first email with one clear ask, 2-3 follow-ups spaced days apart that each add something new rather than repeat the first message, a graceful exit after the last touch, and an immediate switch to human handling the moment anyone replies. Specific numbers (word counts, day-spacing) are pooled from all four below. ## Why two cadences The source material is written for high-volume B2B SaaS cold email - 3-5 day gaps, sub-80-word messages, humor in the break-up email, A/B-tested subject lines. That's the right shape for **NGO / Beyta outreach**, where the audience is a fairly typical software buyer. It's the wrong shape for **diplomatic missions, UN agencies and government bodies** - the majority of this CRM's contacts. Embassies operate on protocol-driven timelines, general inboxes are often read by administrative staff rather than the eventual decision-maker, and anything that reads as a pushy sales cadence risks the relationship rather than building it. That segment gets a slower cadence, fully formal tone throughout (no humor, no urgency tactics), and a longer patience window before closing the loop. ## The sequence Both cadences use the same four-touch shape (Touch 1, then three follow-ups, then a graceful close) - only the timing and tone differ. There is one template sequence per ZUCE Group service line, not one generic pitch, since a diplomatic mission might be worth approaching about event production, PR support, a digital need, or media production depending on what's actually relevant to them - a single "we do everything" email is weaker than a focused one. | | Events & Experiences, PR & Creative, Digital, Media Production | Beyta | |---|---|---| | Audience | Diplomatic missions, UN agencies, international orgs | NGOs | | Touch 1 (introduction) | Day 0 | Day 0 | | Touch 2 (follow-up) | Day 10-14 | Day 3-4 | | Touch 3 (follow-up, more concrete offer) | Day 21-28 | Day 9-10 | | Touch 4 (graceful close) | Day 35-42 | Day 18-21 | | Tone | Formal throughout, no humor/urgency | Direct, can be lighter by Touch 4 | | Word count | Not prescriptive - clarity over brevity | Touch 1: 60-90 words. Follow-ups: 30-50 words | Five categories of templates live in `/admin/crm/templates`: `Events & Experiences`, `PR & Creative`, `Digital`, `Media Production` (all four sharing the slower/formal cadence above), and `Beyta` (the faster cadence). Pick whichever service is actually relevant to that specific prospect rather than defaulting to the same one every time - an embassy's PR office and an embassy hosting a big anniversary event call for different opening pitches even though both are "diplomatic." The `Beyta` templates ship with `[BRACKETED PLACEHOLDERS]` for its value proposition instead of invented product claims - fill those in with the real pitch before using them (edit directly in `/admin/crm/templates`). ## The flowchart ``` ┌─────────────────────┐ │ Touch 1 sent │ │ (stage -> contacted)│ └──────────┬───────────┘ │ ┌──────────────┴──────────────┐ │ │ Reply received No reply by (any time) next touch's │ scheduled date ▼ │ ┌─────────────────────────┐ ▼ │ STOP the sequence. │ ┌────────────────────┐ │ needsReview flag is │ │ More touches left? │ │ already set (via │ └──────────┬──────────┘ │ inbox-sync or manual │ yes │ │ no │ note) - a human reads │ ▼ ▼ │ it and decides. │ ┌──────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ └────────────┬─────────────┘ │ Send next │ │ Send Touch 4 │ │ │ touch, repeat │ │ (graceful close) │ ┌────────────┼────────────┐ └──────────────┘ └────────┬─────────┘ ▼ ▼ ▼ │ Positive Negative Needs info / ▼ reply reply meeting request ┌─────────────────┐ │ │ │ │ No reply to │ ▼ ▼ ▼ │ Touch 4 either: │ stage -> stage -> lost Draft a reply stage -> lost, note │ qualified, with reason (template or "no response after │ draft reply in activity blank, review full sequence" - │ or move to log queue as usual), revisit only if │ proposal stage stays as-is circumstances │ until resolved change (new event, │ new contact, etc.) │ └─────────────────┘ ``` **The one rule that never changes regardless of audience or touch number:** no email leaves this system without a human approving it in the review queue (`/admin/crm/drafts`) first. The actual send then happens via Outlook (`outlook-sync/send-approved-drafts.ps1`), using Collins' real Outlook signature - see docs/CRM_AUTOMATION_ROADMAP.md for why. Nothing here is about removing the approval gate - it's about giving whoever's reviewing a consistent sequence and cadence to work from instead of drafting outreach from scratch every time. ## Stopping conditions (apply to either cadence) - A reply arrives, at any point - stop immediately, don't send the next scheduled touch even if it was already drafted. - The prospect explicitly declines or unsubscribes - stage -> `lost`, log why in the activity note, stop. - All four touches sent with no reply - stage -> `lost`, note "no response after full sequence," dated. This isn't a dead end; a Prospect can always be manually re-engaged later (new event on their calendar, new contact person, changed circumstances) - moving to `lost` just keeps the active pipeline honest about what's actually in motion versus what's gone quiet. ## What's deliberately not built (yet) Automated *sending* of the next touch on schedule isn't built - Touch 2/3/4 still have to be manually triggered (drafted from the template, reviewed, sent) when their date comes up. Automating that trigger is a reasonable next step once the review-queue habit is established, but wasn't asked for here and would need its own review-gate design.